Okay, I'm admittedly horrible with my memory of names (and even plots) of books I have read. (Emily can vouch for the fact that I'm constantly asking her what has happened in books and movies that I've seen even within a week or so....
Anyway, so this is random, but I was reading Lij's blog today, and couldn't help but reminded of the French teacher and her mother in The Jane Austen Book Club. (I don't mean this in a bad way, as pretending with kids is part of life), but it made me smile to think of that when I read her post....
http://elijabet.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-found-it-merry-go-round.html
Showing posts with label The Jane Austen Book Club. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Jane Austen Book Club. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
The end of something
Well I liked the book better after finishing it than I did the first couple of chapters, but I still don't really see the point. Is it supposed to be saying that happiness in love is entirely a matter of chance? That was sort of the feeling I got. If so then I really wonder at the love stories she created. I'm happy that Daniel goes back to Sylvia and I don't mind that Jocelyn and Grigg end up together. I was also happy that Prudie seemed realize just what a gem her husband is. i do however, have trouble with Bernadette ending up with some random person we've never heard of before in the epilogue...although maybe that's where the "chance" thing comes in, but it sort of seems like poor narration to me. I also don't understand how Allegra is suddenly back with her scumbag ex-lover in the epilogue when she had been interested in the nice doctor woman. It seems sort of strange.
I still don't see how any of the characters in any way resemble Austen's actual characters. Chapter 5 had dancing and lots of quotes from P&P so I guess it tied in a little closer than other chapters, but I still didn't see much resemblance. I guess it was still an interesting read, but I feel like I was drawn in on false pretenses. I also couldn't make head nor tails of the narrator by the end either so not so thrilled about that. I guess it makes an ok story, but as a huge Jane Austen fan, I was sorely disappointed in the lack of connection. I'm sort of rambling now, but then, with the way the book turned out...well...ok, I think I'll end and see what others had to say.
I still don't see how any of the characters in any way resemble Austen's actual characters. Chapter 5 had dancing and lots of quotes from P&P so I guess it tied in a little closer than other chapters, but I still didn't see much resemblance. I guess it was still an interesting read, but I feel like I was drawn in on false pretenses. I also couldn't make head nor tails of the narrator by the end either so not so thrilled about that. I guess it makes an ok story, but as a huge Jane Austen fan, I was sorely disappointed in the lack of connection. I'm sort of rambling now, but then, with the way the book turned out...well...ok, I think I'll end and see what others had to say.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The end....
Well, let me start with the positives. First, it was nice in the end that she decided to not make the whole book about pissing all over "love". After the first 1-4 chapters, I thought that's where this was heading. In the end, she did show some positive sides to "love". Her plot did get slightly deeper towards the end as well, as she started to integrate more characters into each chapter, rather than the starkness that was, focusing on one character in the earlier chapters. I think that's what I've got for positives for now.
The negatives, well, rather than repeat the quote, I will just reference it in the previous two posts. What a cheesy, and lacking in thought line. Ridiculous! Especially so, for someone who spent the early parts of the books exploring some of the darker sides of "love". I felt like her ending reflected this lack in thought, as she just started throwing people together at the end. Jocelyn and Grigg was very typical, easy to predict, and I didn't particularly have a problem with them getting together. The whole book started with us knowing he would end up with Jocelyn anyway. Daniel coming back? Don't get me wrong, its very feel good and all, and I don't even mind showing progress towards that end. Really though, I wasn't buying the whole scene with him coming back to book club. Jerry Maguire with no emotion. (Which, try to imagine that scene if Cruise had not bothered to put any emotion into it....he would have been murdered). Anyway, I guess to sum up, despite an improvement from beginning to end, I thought this writer showed extreme lack of depth in her plot mostly, but in her characters as well. I agree with Sarah (I think she said something to this effect) that she seems to have relied on us to import a character into each of these, to give them more depth than they deserved based on her writing.
Finally, if ya'll want a laugh, make sure you read through those study questions. Are you kidding me?
The negatives, well, rather than repeat the quote, I will just reference it in the previous two posts. What a cheesy, and lacking in thought line. Ridiculous! Especially so, for someone who spent the early parts of the books exploring some of the darker sides of "love". I felt like her ending reflected this lack in thought, as she just started throwing people together at the end. Jocelyn and Grigg was very typical, easy to predict, and I didn't particularly have a problem with them getting together. The whole book started with us knowing he would end up with Jocelyn anyway. Daniel coming back? Don't get me wrong, its very feel good and all, and I don't even mind showing progress towards that end. Really though, I wasn't buying the whole scene with him coming back to book club. Jerry Maguire with no emotion. (Which, try to imagine that scene if Cruise had not bothered to put any emotion into it....he would have been murdered). Anyway, I guess to sum up, despite an improvement from beginning to end, I thought this writer showed extreme lack of depth in her plot mostly, but in her characters as well. I agree with Sarah (I think she said something to this effect) that she seems to have relied on us to import a character into each of these, to give them more depth than they deserved based on her writing.
Finally, if ya'll want a laugh, make sure you read through those study questions. Are you kidding me?
Bernadette made the book for me.
So, here's the thing. I don't like comparing the characters to Austen's heroines. It just makes it bleh to me. I like Fowler's characters in their own right. They're mostly interesting and complex on their own. If I think of the Austen match for each other them, it takes away my joy for the characters. I think the coupling between Grigg and Jocelyn was forced, even though i figured it out in Bernadette's chapter.
"We'd let Austen into our lives, and now we were all either married or dating." (Pg. 249) I'm repeating it, sarah, because it made me so mad. So everyone was peachy keen? What kind of ending is that? I enjoyed that Daniel came back, that made me happy. And Bernadette getting married again seemed appropriate. Made me smile. But how like women to think that everyone needed to end up in a relationship??????
Sorry, i know i write romance as a rule, but i expected more from Fowler. I guess she needed Jocelyn to have some sort of arc. Grr.
I loved Bernadette's chapter. Bernadette was fabulous and funny and just so self-assured. I want to be as silly as her when I grow to be her age. Maybe not as many marriages.
Some favorite quotes:
"I hope I've learned a thing or two since. No one with real integrity tries to sell their integrity to you. People with real integrity hardly notice they have it. You see a campaign that focuses on character, rectitude, probity, and that's exactly when you should start asking yourself, What's this guy trying to hide?" (pg. 185)
"Bernadette could tell right off that he hadn't lived long enough to have much to say. His sugar-beet farmer would be thinly drawn." (pg 181)
"But she (Nettie) had herself become invisible, especially to younger men. This had begun back in her fifties, so she was used to it by now. She'd become more audible to compensate." (pg 181)
"(in regards to Mr. Tybald Parker, who picked Nettie up when she wandered from the commune) It was the first time since I'd gone to visit Mattie that I felt God's presence in my life." (pg 190)
Okay, so I just loved Bernadette. She was fun. And I liked Prudie sort of sticking up for her against Mo Bellington the mystery writer.
I'm not sad we read this book. It had some good points. I have no idea how they made a movie of it. But I wanted to know how it ended, which means that there was definitely something to be said for the 'story.' And Fowler writes well, even if her structure is very unorthodox.
"We'd let Austen into our lives, and now we were all either married or dating." (Pg. 249) I'm repeating it, sarah, because it made me so mad. So everyone was peachy keen? What kind of ending is that? I enjoyed that Daniel came back, that made me happy. And Bernadette getting married again seemed appropriate. Made me smile. But how like women to think that everyone needed to end up in a relationship??????
Sorry, i know i write romance as a rule, but i expected more from Fowler. I guess she needed Jocelyn to have some sort of arc. Grr.
I loved Bernadette's chapter. Bernadette was fabulous and funny and just so self-assured. I want to be as silly as her when I grow to be her age. Maybe not as many marriages.
Some favorite quotes:
"I hope I've learned a thing or two since. No one with real integrity tries to sell their integrity to you. People with real integrity hardly notice they have it. You see a campaign that focuses on character, rectitude, probity, and that's exactly when you should start asking yourself, What's this guy trying to hide?" (pg. 185)
"Bernadette could tell right off that he hadn't lived long enough to have much to say. His sugar-beet farmer would be thinly drawn." (pg 181)
"But she (Nettie) had herself become invisible, especially to younger men. This had begun back in her fifties, so she was used to it by now. She'd become more audible to compensate." (pg 181)
"(in regards to Mr. Tybald Parker, who picked Nettie up when she wandered from the commune) It was the first time since I'd gone to visit Mattie that I felt God's presence in my life." (pg 190)
Okay, so I just loved Bernadette. She was fun. And I liked Prudie sort of sticking up for her against Mo Bellington the mystery writer.
I'm not sad we read this book. It had some good points. I have no idea how they made a movie of it. But I wanted to know how it ended, which means that there was definitely something to be said for the 'story.' And Fowler writes well, even if her structure is very unorthodox.
Friday, February 8, 2008
The End.
So, the final chapter went a long way towards me liking this book. The final assessment that "We'd let Austen into our lives, and now we were all either married or dating" seems especially contrived and disturbing. Although, more and more as I think about it, I do see the parallels between the character(s) and the book they hosted. Jocelyn is the busy-body match maker like Emma, who after trying to set her friend up (minor confusion ensues) decides to take a man for herself. Sylvia is the quiet one who keeps everything inside, while Allegra is passionate and reckless, like Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. Bernadette, always disheveled like Elizabeth after walking to Netherfield, is an older version of Elizabeth infinitely intriguing and marriageable, though not desperate. An interesting surpising notable turn with Daniel being Anne. Is Grigg then Catherine? And Prudie Fanny?
I'm torn between seeing Fowler as being clever or being a plagiarist. I love Bridget Jones's Diary and think Fielding terribly clever, so I guess I need to be fair across the board. (Or maybe Fowler is less clever because she's copying Fielding, not Austen). This paralleling does seem to give a little more point to the story. Perhaps the struggle is that there's too many layers. Each of Austen's heroines is a rich complex character that could deserve a whole update on her own (see BJD) and trying to put them all in one story makes for a lot of breadth and "hey, that's nifty" moments, but provides little depth. Once I'd determined what I see as less and less subtle connections, the more Fowler's characters have very little development of their own and rely on the audience's knowledge/love/appreciation of Austen's characters to be transfered to her own.
In regards to Jocelyn's question (#2), I used to watch Wishbone with one of the boys I babysat in high school. I thought it was awesome. Though I don't remember any Austen adaptations (apparently there are two "Furst Impressions" and "Pup Fiction"), I would certainly love to see them. I doubt Jocelyn would.
I'm torn between seeing Fowler as being clever or being a plagiarist. I love Bridget Jones's Diary and think Fielding terribly clever, so I guess I need to be fair across the board. (Or maybe Fowler is less clever because she's copying Fielding, not Austen). This paralleling does seem to give a little more point to the story. Perhaps the struggle is that there's too many layers. Each of Austen's heroines is a rich complex character that could deserve a whole update on her own (see BJD) and trying to put them all in one story makes for a lot of breadth and "hey, that's nifty" moments, but provides little depth. Once I'd determined what I see as less and less subtle connections, the more Fowler's characters have very little development of their own and rely on the audience's knowledge/love/appreciation of Austen's characters to be transfered to her own.
In regards to Jocelyn's question (#2), I used to watch Wishbone with one of the boys I babysat in high school. I thought it was awesome. Though I don't remember any Austen adaptations (apparently there are two "Furst Impressions" and "Pup Fiction"), I would certainly love to see them. I doubt Jocelyn would.
Still liking the book...
Alright, I think most has been said and I really need to start writing a post the moment I finish the chapters, cause i think i read this like over a week ago. Shame on me.
I don't really get this book or it's characters, but I am enjoying the simple reading of it. I find the characters a little too quirky to be real, but Prudie and Grigg were my favorites so far. Prudie because I guess I got the thing with her student. :) Big surprise. Grigg because he seemed lovable and interesting, though I don't think we got into his head as much as we do the female characters.
And I don't think Grigg will end up with anybody, Sarah. I just don't think this is that kind of story.
I do want to know the end. If there is an end for this kind of book.
I don't really get this book or it's characters, but I am enjoying the simple reading of it. I find the characters a little too quirky to be real, but Prudie and Grigg were my favorites so far. Prudie because I guess I got the thing with her student. :) Big surprise. Grigg because he seemed lovable and interesting, though I don't think we got into his head as much as we do the female characters.
And I don't think Grigg will end up with anybody, Sarah. I just don't think this is that kind of story.
I do want to know the end. If there is an end for this kind of book.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
My Thoughts
Okay, because this isn't school, and I don't have to have an order, here are some of my thoughts, in no particular order and devoid of elegant transitions.
1. A quote that I loved from the second chapter, "When happy, she was uncontrollable, when sad, inconsolable, until she changed--fast as a finger snap--long after you'd given up" (45). I just adore the rhythm; it reminds me of Maya Angelou's "Phenomenal Woman."
2. Nope. Two-thirds of the way through the book and I still dislike the narrative structure. "Grigg didn't tell us any of this, because he thought we wouldn't be interested" (126)--awkward, awkward, and more awkward. Of course, if I was writing a paper on this, I'd probably argue that it was a failed attempt at something innovative, and potentially I'd identify a 3rd person narrator position at the outermost level of the story that gives us the character info, and the 1st person plural as a sub-narrator within that narrator that doesn't know the additional information, except that makes the quote wrong, and oh that's right--awkward!
3. I normally love 'fan' books and adaptations (Wuthering High is pretty fun), but this one isn't doing it for me. I'm curious what the author feels about adaptation and Austen. Her characters were rather narrow-minded about the film adaptation of Mansfield Park (if you won't be satisfied with anything less than the exact book, then read the book, don't go see a movie of it), yet Fowler's work is predicated on offering a modern critique of Austen's books, which is exactly what a good adaptation does--offers a reading of the text. She just has her characters talk about it rather than actually doing it (and as we've all learned the best writing shows rather than tells).
4. Some minutiae--I love Grigg's observation that Northanger Abbey was "very pomo" made me laugh, and then the pseudo-narrator's comment that "over at the university, people were paid to worry about such things; they'd soon have it well in hand" (138). I'm a big nerd for the academic fiction (or academic elements to other fiction).
1. A quote that I loved from the second chapter, "When happy, she was uncontrollable, when sad, inconsolable, until she changed--fast as a finger snap--long after you'd given up" (45). I just adore the rhythm; it reminds me of Maya Angelou's "Phenomenal Woman."
2. Nope. Two-thirds of the way through the book and I still dislike the narrative structure. "Grigg didn't tell us any of this, because he thought we wouldn't be interested" (126)--awkward, awkward, and more awkward. Of course, if I was writing a paper on this, I'd probably argue that it was a failed attempt at something innovative, and potentially I'd identify a 3rd person narrator position at the outermost level of the story that gives us the character info, and the 1st person plural as a sub-narrator within that narrator that doesn't know the additional information, except that makes the quote wrong, and oh that's right--awkward!
3. I normally love 'fan' books and adaptations (Wuthering High is pretty fun), but this one isn't doing it for me. I'm curious what the author feels about adaptation and Austen. Her characters were rather narrow-minded about the film adaptation of Mansfield Park (if you won't be satisfied with anything less than the exact book, then read the book, don't go see a movie of it), yet Fowler's work is predicated on offering a modern critique of Austen's books, which is exactly what a good adaptation does--offers a reading of the text. She just has her characters talk about it rather than actually doing it (and as we've all learned the best writing shows rather than tells).
4. Some minutiae--I love Grigg's observation that Northanger Abbey was "very pomo" made me laugh, and then the pseudo-narrator's comment that "over at the university, people were paid to worry about such things; they'd soon have it well in hand" (138). I'm a big nerd for the academic fiction (or academic elements to other fiction).
Mr. Darcy makes #1
So I know this is a bit of a stretch, but since we are discussing a book in which Austen's works are discussed, Sarah and I agreed I ought to post this for you all to read. Sarah also suggested we should now read these seven books in order for our book club so we can study the ideal man. What do you think, Chris? :)
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Chapters 3 and 4
I agreed with the general consensus that I liked chapters 3 and 4 better than the first two. Sad as it seems, I think Grigg is the most likeable character so far, but maybe this is true to Austen who tends to have more defects in her heroines than her heros. Not that I think Grigg is a hero. He just seems like a nice guy, and I also like that he likes science fiction. His chapter seems the most like Austen, since we never actually find out what happens at that party he went to when he was 10, what happened to his dad. Its a bit more suggestive than some of the others coming right out and stating things.
So, is anyone else having trouble finding corrolations between the book they are reading and the person's life described in the chapter? I read the comments on the back, and one was stating how Fowler took all of Austen's works and themes and made them very up-to-date, and I just don't agree with that view, thus far. I guess I can't really make the judgment until I have finished the book.
So, is anyone else having trouble finding corrolations between the book they are reading and the person's life described in the chapter? I read the comments on the back, and one was stating how Fowler took all of Austen's works and themes and made them very up-to-date, and I just don't agree with that view, thus far. I guess I can't really make the judgment until I have finished the book.
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Movie?
Did anyone else know this existed? Apparently they've made The Jane Austen Book Club the movie. I watched the trailer and I'm not sure if it gives anything away or just makes some stuff up, but if you don't want to risk any spoilers, I'd wait until after you have read the whole thing. They definitely took some liberties with it though, all the characters are younger and prettier than the ones in the book. You can see this just by following my link to the IMDB page. They also have all their stories happening simultaneously...I guess maybe they had trouble finding a way to make the book into a story with a point? Anyhow, once people have viewed this I'd like to know what they think. I almost feel like we should all see the movie so we can compare...isn't that what Sarah does for a living?! :)
Better than Before
Clearly the author is misguided in including so much sexual content in her book. If she is capitalizing on Jane Austen's name and literature to attract readers, she really ought to consider the audience who like Austen's books. Somehow I don't see many people who enjoy Austen being thrilled by a book full of unromantic and even inappropriate sexual encounters. She would have been better off going for witty banter and scandalous happenings.
Despite that I enjoyed chapters 3 and 4 much better than 1 and 2. Maybe I just liked Prudie and Grigg's stories better, though I think part of it is liking Grigg's character and empathizing somewhat with Prudie. I'm not a school teacher though I've been a sub with some rowdy kids and I haven't lost my mother, though she's been quite sick a couple times, but she draws me in other ways. I feel sorry for the little Prudie who never got to experience anything fun for real as a child, yet I understand so well about sometimes pretending ending up being better than reality. I think of all the times I've blown things up with grand expectation in my head, only to be disappointed by the actual event. There have been days that I look back at and wonder, "Did that actually happen or did I dream it?" My wedding day, which all of you were present for, is one of them, not unlike Prudie's own expereince. Sad as it actually is, I love the idea that reality and fantasy blend into a beautiful, romantic childhood that allowed a little girl with nothing to experience everything. Still, her mother definitely cheated her little girl and took fantasy beyond the limits where it belongs.
As for Grigg, how can you not love his character even more now?! Despite him being babied, I love his three sisters who clearly were better parents than his own. I love that he loves science fiction and Austen and is tasteful (cute little house and appetizers he serves), yet still a guy and that his favorite Jane Austen is Nothanger Abbey, and that he's actually read Udolpho! (Which, by the way I think we all ought to read for the fun of it!) In short, if this guy were real I think he'd be perfect for Sarah.
I'm actually eagerly anticipating seeing where the story goes (I honestly can't remember very much) in the last two chapters. I'm tempted to read them now, but considering I'm writing this post a day early (I'll save it and wait to post until Friday), I figure I should at least give others the courtesy of posting and predicting so I can add my two cents worth before diving into the end and finding out the answers to all of our questions.
Oh and my favorite quote has to be the one in chapter 3 when Prudie says she felt she could watch the kids for suicide and drugs and the like, but that asking her to teach them French on top of that was really too much!
Despite that I enjoyed chapters 3 and 4 much better than 1 and 2. Maybe I just liked Prudie and Grigg's stories better, though I think part of it is liking Grigg's character and empathizing somewhat with Prudie. I'm not a school teacher though I've been a sub with some rowdy kids and I haven't lost my mother, though she's been quite sick a couple times, but she draws me in other ways. I feel sorry for the little Prudie who never got to experience anything fun for real as a child, yet I understand so well about sometimes pretending ending up being better than reality. I think of all the times I've blown things up with grand expectation in my head, only to be disappointed by the actual event. There have been days that I look back at and wonder, "Did that actually happen or did I dream it?" My wedding day, which all of you were present for, is one of them, not unlike Prudie's own expereince. Sad as it actually is, I love the idea that reality and fantasy blend into a beautiful, romantic childhood that allowed a little girl with nothing to experience everything. Still, her mother definitely cheated her little girl and took fantasy beyond the limits where it belongs.
As for Grigg, how can you not love his character even more now?! Despite him being babied, I love his three sisters who clearly were better parents than his own. I love that he loves science fiction and Austen and is tasteful (cute little house and appetizers he serves), yet still a guy and that his favorite Jane Austen is Nothanger Abbey, and that he's actually read Udolpho! (Which, by the way I think we all ought to read for the fun of it!) In short, if this guy were real I think he'd be perfect for Sarah.
I'm actually eagerly anticipating seeing where the story goes (I honestly can't remember very much) in the last two chapters. I'm tempted to read them now, but considering I'm writing this post a day early (I'll save it and wait to post until Friday), I figure I should at least give others the courtesy of posting and predicting so I can add my two cents worth before diving into the end and finding out the answers to all of our questions.
Oh and my favorite quote has to be the one in chapter 3 when Prudie says she felt she could watch the kids for suicide and drugs and the like, but that asking her to teach them French on top of that was really too much!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Chapters 3 & 4
Rather than just repeat my post for chapters 1 and 2, let me keep this short and sweet, as I only have one quick question to ask....
What do we think happened to Grigg's father at that party?
01/29/2008
Reflecting on what I had read to so far, it occured to me that there is no way this author is married (although potentially previously married and now divorced), and I think that affects not only her content (the closest thing to marriage in the book being a divorce) and perhaps the realism of some of her characters. To confirm I looked her up on Wikipedia. As I suspected, no husband, although she appears to be a single mother. Also, she seems to be of the feminist bent (not surprising had I pondered further). Here's the link, probably would be instructive if ya'll take a chance to check it out. Not that long of an article, and no spoilers for our book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Joy_Fowler
To clarify, so as to hopefully avoid ruffling any feathers, or getting labeled a "smug married". I'm not saying that you have to have been married to be able to write realistic characters when it comes to matters of love. My point was more that I would have had a hard time believing that someone so cynical towards love could be in a marriage. Perhaps before the end of this book we will see some concession towards a positive side of love, but given what we have so far, I'm highly doubting it. Another question, along these lines, for discussion....
Does anyone yet have a feel for what the whole point of this book is? I see some possibilities, but I'm not sure I'm able to grasp where this whole thing is going or to what purpose, yet.
01/30/2008
What do we think happened to Grigg's father at that party?
01/29/2008
Reflecting on what I had read to so far, it occured to me that there is no way this author is married (although potentially previously married and now divorced), and I think that affects not only her content (the closest thing to marriage in the book being a divorce) and perhaps the realism of some of her characters. To confirm I looked her up on Wikipedia. As I suspected, no husband, although she appears to be a single mother. Also, she seems to be of the feminist bent (not surprising had I pondered further). Here's the link, probably would be instructive if ya'll take a chance to check it out. Not that long of an article, and no spoilers for our book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Joy_Fowler
To clarify, so as to hopefully avoid ruffling any feathers, or getting labeled a "smug married". I'm not saying that you have to have been married to be able to write realistic characters when it comes to matters of love. My point was more that I would have had a hard time believing that someone so cynical towards love could be in a marriage. Perhaps before the end of this book we will see some concession towards a positive side of love, but given what we have so far, I'm highly doubting it. Another question, along these lines, for discussion....
Does anyone yet have a feel for what the whole point of this book is? I see some possibilities, but I'm not sure I'm able to grasp where this whole thing is going or to what purpose, yet.
01/30/2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Completely Frivolous
Chris, you may not want to participate.
Which Austen Heroine are you?
I swear I just randomly found this on a friend's blog. How crazy is that?
According to the difficult quiz, I'm Catherine Morland of Northanger Abbey. Which I guess I'll need to read.
Funniest part is it's one of the two Austen stories that's partly set in Bath. Oh the irony!
On another note, this blog is set on Mountain time I think. It's actually the 26th at about 3:10 in the morning for me.
Which Austen Heroine are you?
I swear I just randomly found this on a friend's blog. How crazy is that?
According to the difficult quiz, I'm Catherine Morland of Northanger Abbey. Which I guess I'll need to read.
Funniest part is it's one of the two Austen stories that's partly set in Bath. Oh the irony!
On another note, this blog is set on Mountain time I think. It's actually the 26th at about 3:10 in the morning for me.
I am not that easily influenced.
Just thought I'd put that out there first. With books anyway, I'm pretty set in what I think, although the best part of discussion is seeing something in a different light.
Gathering my thoughts...I read the first two chapters on Monday and forced myself to stop so I wouldn't spoil anything unintentionally.
It is one of the strangest structures for a novel I've encountered. I'm most curious at who the narrator is. Because the way she (assuming it is a 'she', it is after all Jane Austen books) talks about everyone's Jane Austen, "six of us," but never says who she is, well, it's just very mysterious. And the first two people she details for us in the chapters she speaks about distantly. Maybe she's each of the members, a sort of universal all-knowing second person point of view. Kinda weird, but it works as far as I can tell.
I'm not offended terribly by the sexual encounters that were more or less detailed about Jocelyn or Allegra. I think for the most part it was tastefully done. I actually had to read it twice to make sure I assumed what happened correctly. And in the description of each member, I find myself intrigued to know each one's story, even if I have nothing in common with them (which at this point is how I feel). Maybe I'm dense (a possibility), but I haven't really attached any of them with Austen's characters yet. Maybe it'll hit me later.
I get annoyed with sexual encounters being the 'life-changing' experiences when people give us characters' pasts. It's just so cliche, so that bugs me. Although, I like the take on Allegra and her ex and how her ex used her for story material. I thought that was not so typical, at least not the way Fowler presented it. I won't do that to you guys, not without your permission. :)
What kid cries over the colour white????? This is what annoyed me about this book. The self-awareness of the members as young people. Not that we can't be self-aware at a young age. But the idiosyncrasies seem very unrealistic. Very artsy and writerly/literary. Does that make sense? I don't care if the character's artistic or whatever, that just seemed a bit over the top for me. Maybe I'm being unfair.
I agree with sarahbear's comment about the Austen-bashing by Grigg. The women are so snooty about Austen, and heaven forbid if you call her Jane. I think she'd like that. If her readers felt so close to her that they could call her by her first name.
I dig Jocelyn, I must say. The feeling of power about the boys and not meaning to lead them on, while I can't directly relate, I get it. And I do think that these women are real in a lot of ways. Maybe a little too quirky in the way that independent movies have their quirky damaged characters that are great, but get on your nerves.
But I like the characters, despite my issues. I do want to know their stories.
That's it for now, I guess. So, should we figure out what Austen characters we each are? :)
Gathering my thoughts...I read the first two chapters on Monday and forced myself to stop so I wouldn't spoil anything unintentionally.
It is one of the strangest structures for a novel I've encountered. I'm most curious at who the narrator is. Because the way she (assuming it is a 'she', it is after all Jane Austen books) talks about everyone's Jane Austen, "six of us," but never says who she is, well, it's just very mysterious. And the first two people she details for us in the chapters she speaks about distantly. Maybe she's each of the members, a sort of universal all-knowing second person point of view. Kinda weird, but it works as far as I can tell.
I'm not offended terribly by the sexual encounters that were more or less detailed about Jocelyn or Allegra. I think for the most part it was tastefully done. I actually had to read it twice to make sure I assumed what happened correctly. And in the description of each member, I find myself intrigued to know each one's story, even if I have nothing in common with them (which at this point is how I feel). Maybe I'm dense (a possibility), but I haven't really attached any of them with Austen's characters yet. Maybe it'll hit me later.
I get annoyed with sexual encounters being the 'life-changing' experiences when people give us characters' pasts. It's just so cliche, so that bugs me. Although, I like the take on Allegra and her ex and how her ex used her for story material. I thought that was not so typical, at least not the way Fowler presented it. I won't do that to you guys, not without your permission. :)
What kid cries over the colour white????? This is what annoyed me about this book. The self-awareness of the members as young people. Not that we can't be self-aware at a young age. But the idiosyncrasies seem very unrealistic. Very artsy and writerly/literary. Does that make sense? I don't care if the character's artistic or whatever, that just seemed a bit over the top for me. Maybe I'm being unfair.
I agree with sarahbear's comment about the Austen-bashing by Grigg. The women are so snooty about Austen, and heaven forbid if you call her Jane. I think she'd like that. If her readers felt so close to her that they could call her by her first name.
I dig Jocelyn, I must say. The feeling of power about the boys and not meaning to lead them on, while I can't directly relate, I get it. And I do think that these women are real in a lot of ways. Maybe a little too quirky in the way that independent movies have their quirky damaged characters that are great, but get on your nerves.
But I like the characters, despite my issues. I do want to know their stories.
That's it for now, I guess. So, should we figure out what Austen characters we each are? :)
An Interesting First book
First of all I think that it is highly appropriate that we are reading a book about a book club as our first book, especially since the fictional one has only one male in it as well! Second, I have read this book before, but don't remember much so you shouldn't have to worry about me accidentally giving spoilers.
I can't say that I love this book, though I am certainly intrigued by it. Right away I began looking for comparisons between each character and the book that was being read in each chapter. I think I'm finding that characters have some character traits with a modern twist on the Austen characters. I find the personal histories interesting, though somewhat perverted in many instances. I am very glad to be reading this book with a group of Christians so that if I express my disgust at moral filth, I won't be berated for narrow-mindedness.
My natural tendency when reading almost any story is to find the character I am most like and relate to the person. Thus far I haven't found someone I am like per say. I think perhaps Sylvia is the one I feel most akin to, but that could easily change. Part of the difficulty in having only six, very long chapters, each devoted mainly to the personality of one person, is that we won't really get to know the last character until the final chapter...at least this is what I presume. I suppose we do learn bits and pieces about each person through the other's eyes.
As far as voice goes, I find it a bit out of the ordinary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for this book.. I actually enjoyed the part in chapter one where suddenly the story was being told from the point of view of the dog, very clever and an interesting perspective. I suppose the benefit of having the book written this way is that we get a more intimate look at each character from his or her own point of view. This book is all about the characters in my opinion, so for me, this works well as a narrative technique.
No entry on any book would be complete without my favorite quotes so here are the ones that have stood out for me in the first two chapters, though apparently they are all out of the second one only:
"What a waste those eyelashes were on a man who watched sitcoms."
"A madonna with fire-bright cheeks, eyes like mirrors."
"Sylvia had uncorked a nice Petit Syrah, something that went well with cheese and crackers, the rain and the fire."
"Another woman was writing a fantasy novel, and it had a good plot, ticked right along, except everyone in it had amber eyes, or emerald or amethyst or sapphire. Nothing the other members said could persuade her to substitute brown or blue..."
Confession about the last quote, it made me think of Eden! Chris apparently though the same thing! Anyone else think of her when they read that? :)
I can't say that I love this book, though I am certainly intrigued by it. Right away I began looking for comparisons between each character and the book that was being read in each chapter. I think I'm finding that characters have some character traits with a modern twist on the Austen characters. I find the personal histories interesting, though somewhat perverted in many instances. I am very glad to be reading this book with a group of Christians so that if I express my disgust at moral filth, I won't be berated for narrow-mindedness.
My natural tendency when reading almost any story is to find the character I am most like and relate to the person. Thus far I haven't found someone I am like per say. I think perhaps Sylvia is the one I feel most akin to, but that could easily change. Part of the difficulty in having only six, very long chapters, each devoted mainly to the personality of one person, is that we won't really get to know the last character until the final chapter...at least this is what I presume. I suppose we do learn bits and pieces about each person through the other's eyes.
As far as voice goes, I find it a bit out of the ordinary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for this book.. I actually enjoyed the part in chapter one where suddenly the story was being told from the point of view of the dog, very clever and an interesting perspective. I suppose the benefit of having the book written this way is that we get a more intimate look at each character from his or her own point of view. This book is all about the characters in my opinion, so for me, this works well as a narrative technique.
No entry on any book would be complete without my favorite quotes so here are the ones that have stood out for me in the first two chapters, though apparently they are all out of the second one only:
"What a waste those eyelashes were on a man who watched sitcoms."
"A madonna with fire-bright cheeks, eyes like mirrors."
"Sylvia had uncorked a nice Petit Syrah, something that went well with cheese and crackers, the rain and the fire."
"Another woman was writing a fantasy novel, and it had a good plot, ticked right along, except everyone in it had amber eyes, or emerald or amethyst or sapphire. Nothing the other members said could persuade her to substitute brown or blue..."
Confession about the last quote, it made me think of Eden! Chris apparently though the same thing! Anyone else think of her when they read that? :)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
My take....
Hmmm....I don't know how to make this anything but scathing. I don't know whether this book disgusts me, or inspires me, in that if this lady can sell a book surely I can too. Shouldn't this book really be called 6 character sketches? I mean, don't get me wrong, I appreciate well developed characters. I listened to Bird in the Tree by Elizabeth Gouge, and enjoyed it, and the plot was less than memorable, but the characters were engaging so I willingly went on and listened to the next two books in the series. However, at least those books had some plot. This book (if it can fairly be called that?) has absolutely, positively no plot. The plot of people discussing Austen's works, I suppose could work, however, less than a third of the book is even set in this setting so far. Most of it is flashbacks to pasts that explain the neurotic idiosyncracies of the present day character, all so obviously stereotypical that again, it just makes me think, dang....even I could write a book. (Maybe I too could capitalize on a famous author's name to sell my story. I'll write the follow up....The J. R. Tolkien Dungeons and Dragons club....that'd sell a million copies just for having Tolkien in the title right?) And as a reference point....I really wanted to like this book, to quell any worries ya'll had about my ability to enjoy a "girl" book. Believe it or not I can get through and find enjoyment in a "girl" book, as I've made it through at least one Meg Cabot book....but this is too much....anyway.....
Okay, now that I've got that out of my system, let me try to bring in some positives. First, I'm always wary of hating any story, book or otherwise, until the end ever since seeing Citizen Kane. That was by far the worst first 2 hours of a movie I have ever watched. I so wanted to just stop watching that tedious movie. However, the last 15 seconds completely changed my perception of that movie and has me acknowledging that it truly is one of the greatest movies ever. (And to think Emily didn't make it all the way through, and still has no idea what I'm talking about in this reference).
Second, despite the dullness of the plotline, I suppose the characters are still worth discussing. Mostly, being a guy, I'm interested in hearing the take of all you gals on how realistic these women seem to you? I'm not sure what to think of the leader of the group (sorry I always forget names and Emily is in the other room so I can't ask her right now). At least in her recounting of her past she seems almost too "okay" with the whole sexual assault thing. Being a guy though, I have no reference at all for this sort of thing. Whereas, I assume most women in some way or another (although obviously not all to that degree), at least have a concept of being trodden upon by men at some time or another. Not sure any of us can completely relate to the divorcee, but I have to say she seems the most realistic character in the book to me so far. As for the guy, who it will be my job to give insight on I suppose, the jury still is out. He's pretty quiet most of the time, with which I can relate (at least in a group of people I don't know well). Not really sure what his motives are in being there at this point. We shall see.....
Anyway, there's my ramblings on the first couple of chapters, and after getting through that, I am realizing that I need to wait until right before I post to read the next two chapters or I need to take notes as I go along, because I know I'm forgetting a million things I wanted to say. I look forward to hearing what the rest of you think and letting the discussions begin in the comments. Hopefully some fresh perspectives on the book will help me to find more enjoyment in the last 4 chapters.
Okay, now that I've got that out of my system, let me try to bring in some positives. First, I'm always wary of hating any story, book or otherwise, until the end ever since seeing Citizen Kane. That was by far the worst first 2 hours of a movie I have ever watched. I so wanted to just stop watching that tedious movie. However, the last 15 seconds completely changed my perception of that movie and has me acknowledging that it truly is one of the greatest movies ever. (And to think Emily didn't make it all the way through, and still has no idea what I'm talking about in this reference).
Second, despite the dullness of the plotline, I suppose the characters are still worth discussing. Mostly, being a guy, I'm interested in hearing the take of all you gals on how realistic these women seem to you? I'm not sure what to think of the leader of the group (sorry I always forget names and Emily is in the other room so I can't ask her right now). At least in her recounting of her past she seems almost too "okay" with the whole sexual assault thing. Being a guy though, I have no reference at all for this sort of thing. Whereas, I assume most women in some way or another (although obviously not all to that degree), at least have a concept of being trodden upon by men at some time or another. Not sure any of us can completely relate to the divorcee, but I have to say she seems the most realistic character in the book to me so far. As for the guy, who it will be my job to give insight on I suppose, the jury still is out. He's pretty quiet most of the time, with which I can relate (at least in a group of people I don't know well). Not really sure what his motives are in being there at this point. We shall see.....
Anyway, there's my ramblings on the first couple of chapters, and after getting through that, I am realizing that I need to wait until right before I post to read the next two chapters or I need to take notes as I go along, because I know I'm forgetting a million things I wanted to say. I look forward to hearing what the rest of you think and letting the discussions begin in the comments. Hopefully some fresh perspectives on the book will help me to find more enjoyment in the last 4 chapters.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
All of Austen's Works
I thought that choosing this book was a good idea seeing as it was about a book club reading the novels of one of our most beloved authors. Now I'm wondering if we should have read Austen first! It's a little worrisome to have Chris be reading along and look up and ask, "Which one is Emma?" and then still not know even though I tried to describe it (it being the movie as he hasn't read the book!) Oh well! For anyone who isn't quite as up to date on their Austen novels and wants a quick refresher, Masterpiece Theater is doing a mini series on PBS called the complete Jane Austen. It's on Sunday nights at 9:00 pm. Last week was Persuasion and this past Sunday was Northanger Abbey. This upcoming Sunday is Mansfield Park. Pride and Prejudice is Feb. 10, 17 & 24, Emma is March 24, and Sense & Sensibility is March 30 & April 6. I hope that is helpful to anyone who wants to brush up on the stories. The first two have been pretty good and even Chris found Northanger Abbey amusing, which is by far the strangest of Austen's works.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Rules
Following Roomie's lead I will also make a proposal that barring amendments or objections we can just consider to be the "rules".
I think we need to strike a balance between the need to discuss along the way, yet not wanting to have too strict of a reading schedule. So, here's my proposal, based on Sarah's suggested finish date of February 15th.
No posts concerning what you have read until January 25th. From January 25th to February 1st posts can be written concerning the 1st 2 chapters. From February 1st to February 8th posts can be written concerning the 1st 4 chapters and then on February 15th the whole book is game. This way everyone knows if they risk spoiling anything for themselves by checking out the blog. It will be up to those posting to make sure that they do not include any hints or ideas they may have gotten from reading beyond what we are posting about.
Also I propose that in our labels we post our names so that we can separate out each others contributions more easily if we are looking back for a previous post. Also, we should use either the book or author or both in the label for the current book we are reading. Again for easier sorting. Just some suggestions.
I think we need to strike a balance between the need to discuss along the way, yet not wanting to have too strict of a reading schedule. So, here's my proposal, based on Sarah's suggested finish date of February 15th.
No posts concerning what you have read until January 25th. From January 25th to February 1st posts can be written concerning the 1st 2 chapters. From February 1st to February 8th posts can be written concerning the 1st 4 chapters and then on February 15th the whole book is game. This way everyone knows if they risk spoiling anything for themselves by checking out the blog. It will be up to those posting to make sure that they do not include any hints or ideas they may have gotten from reading beyond what we are posting about.
Also I propose that in our labels we post our names so that we can separate out each others contributions more easily if we are looking back for a previous post. Also, we should use either the book or author or both in the label for the current book we are reading. Again for easier sorting. Just some suggestions.
The First Book
After much discussion, we've finally hit upon our first book to read: The Jane Austen Book Club. Rather than wait send a schedule into committee (which would probably take weeks), I propose that we try to read this book in no more than a month. I'm uncertain what the 'rules' should be (do we want to try to read half way in two weeks and then finish it in another two?). Should we post along the way, or try to only post when the selected reading is finished?
At the very least, let's try to have finished the book by February 15th, okay?
At the very least, let's try to have finished the book by February 15th, okay?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)